Ukraine PM: Russia wants to start World War III

posted at 8:01 am on April 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Russia and Ukraine tossed around charges and countercharges on Friday as the war of words remains in the realm of rhetoric — at least for now. Ukraine PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused Russia of fomenting World War III and warned of war in Europe for the first time in fifteen years:

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk accused Russia on Friday of wanting to start World War Three by occupying Ukraine “militarily and politically”.

“The world has not yet forgotten World War Two, but Russia already wants to start World War Three,” Yatseniuk told the interim cabinet in remarks broadcast live. “Attempts at military conflict in Ukraine will lead to a military conflict in Europe.”

In some of the strongest language he has yet used in a war of words between the former Soviet neighbors, as both sides have deployed troops close to their frontier, Yatseniuk accused Moscow of acting like a “gangster” supporting “terrorists”.

“It is clear that Russia’s goal is to wreck the election in Ukraine, remove the pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian government and occupy Ukraine politically as well as military,” added the premier.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West on Friday of plotting to control Ukraine and said the pro-Russian insurgents in the southeast would lay down their arms only if the Ukrainian government clears out the Maidan protest camp in the capital Kiev.

“The West wants — and this is how it all began — to seize control of Ukraine because of their own political ambitions, not in the interests of the Ukrainian people,” Lavrov said on Friday.

On Friday, Lavrov criticized what he says was Kerry’s “unacceptable, accusatory tone.”

Well, there’s a lot of accusatory language flying around the Ukraine crisis these days, and Lavrov hardly has room to complain. But it’s not just language that has Ukraine worried, either. Russian forces on the Ukraine border have begun “pulsing” movements, either as “exercises” (as Russia claims), or perhaps as an attempt to provoke Ukrainian forces into a response or to expose their defensive strategies:

Russian military forces are “pulsing the border” and making a “run toward Ukraine” — but pulling up well short — in their “training exercise,” U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.

But it’s not clear whether the Russian forces are actually preparing to cross the border into Ukraine or simply putting on a “show of force,” the officials said.

The Russians drew Georgia into a war in 2008 by provoking them through infiltration and actions similar to what has happened in Crimea and eastern Ukraine over the last several weeks. So far, though, the Ukrainians aren’t biting on the lures. This appears to be a test of Ukrainian border-guard discipline, and at least for now the Ukrainians are passing the test. This makes it quite clear that Yatsenyuk is at least correct to the extent that Russia wants a war — not WWIII, but a quick war that it can use to seize more territory while claiming to be acting in self-defense.

What’s the end game for that strategy? Eastern Ukraine isn’t the wealthiest neighborhood, after all, so it’s not an end in itself. Transnistria is hoping they’re part of the larger game:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

On a trip to the former Yugoslavia last summer, I was amazed to find that there are those who STILL yearn for the days of Tito.

Happy Nomad on April 25, 2014 at 8:09 AM

Well, the “Little White Violet of the Mountains” managed to keep the Serbs and Croats away from each others’ throats for nearly half a century, even with them living cheek-by-jowl with each other. And his definition of socialism was more Swedish than Soviet. Among other things, when he exported arms, it was to whoever could pay cash on the barrelhead, not just whoever Moscow wanted to arm next.

I have to give Tito credit for the fact that he irritated the Hell out of several Soviet strongmen, going clear back to Stalin. While making Yugoslavia probably the most “Western-friendly” of the Communist states.

When you consider how much of his military was outfitted with U.S. hardware under MAP up into the Sixties, it’s pretty obvious that either he was friendlier to our side than the boys in the Kremlin would have liked, or several of our Presidents (including Ike and JFK) weren’t as smart as they’re generally considered to be.

When you consider how much of his military was outfitted with U.S. hardware under MAP up into the Sixties, it’s pretty obvious that either he was friendlier to our side than the boys in the Kremlin would have liked, or several of our Presidents (including Ike and JFK) weren’t as smart as they’re generally considered to be.

eon on April 25, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Tito had the advantage of not being beholden to Moscow after WWII. He created a slightly different kind of socialism which included decidedly non-Russian features like the ability of the citizenry to travel to the West. And he managed to tamp down the ethnic divisions within Yugoslavia for decades.

WWIII? Too late. We’re already in that one (Global Islamofascists Vs. Everybody). But I suppose we can pencil them in for WWIV….

apostic on April 25, 2014 at 8:21 AM

You forget who labels wars “World”. After all, the Eurocentric historians didn’t deem WWII to start when the Japanese took over Manchuria, or took over coastal China, or tried to take over Mongolia and Soviet Siberia (all before the Germans and Soviets crushed Poland), or took over the European/American colonies in southeast Asia (when the “world” part of WWII really became reality).

What makes you think that 9/11, or our response to it, will be deemed the start of WWIII?

You forget who labels wars “World”. After all, the Eurocentric historians didn’t deem WWII to start when the Japanese took over Manchuria, or took over coastal China, or tried to take over Mongolia and Soviet Siberia (all before the Germans and Soviets crushed Poland), or took over the European/American colonies in southeast Asia (when the “world” part of WWII really became reality).

What makes you think that 9/11, or our response to it, will be deemed the start of WWIII?

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Thanks for that perspective, and it is quite correct when considering the longer range prospect of the world conflagration. However, before Germany (and Italy; can’t forget those warmongering Romans) got involved Japan was basically involved in regional conflicts limiting its forces to eastern Asia. It wasn’t until Germany starting flexing its muscles that Europe and the rest of the world made it a true world war, and then not until the U.S. got all in. That’s my perspective, anyway.

I get this feeling that Putin and Obama are skipping across the globe hand-in-hand joyfully relishing their plans coming to fruition. The Marxists are winning, because the proletariat are easily distracted.

You forget who labels wars “World”. After all, the Eurocentric historians didn’t deem WWII to start when the Japanese took over Manchuria, or took over coastal China, or tried to take over Mongolia and Soviet Siberia (all before the Germans and Soviets crushed Poland), or took over the European/American colonies in southeast Asia (when the “world” part of WWII really became reality).

What makes you think that 9/11, or our response to it, will be deemed the start of WWIII?

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

In reality, historians have come to view WWII in Europe as an extension of WWI. Which, IMO, is a fair assessment since you really can’t get at the root causes of WWII without understanding WWI and the subsequent results (Treaty of Versailles, dismantling the Austrian-Hungarian empire, rise of socialism in Russia, isolationist movement, etc.).

Japan could well have gotten away with its expansion in Asia had they not attacked the United States. Europe was too involved with conflict at home to do much about their overseas empires and the United States was sufficiently isolationist to stay out of the fray.

But as to historians framing WWIII along the lines of a battle with Islamofascists. I agree with you that the 9/11/01 atrocities are not even close to being the opening salvo. I would place that date back in the 1970s when the Islamists ejected the increasingly Westernized socieites of the Middle East and replaced them with Islamic fundamentalism. Hard as it is for the Millenials to believe there was a time when Tehran was one of the most Westernized cities in the region and Beruit was a tourist and banking center.

It wasn’t until Germany starting flexing its muscles that Europe and the rest of the world made it a true world war, and then not until the U.S. got all in. That’s my perspective, anyway.

HiJack on April 25, 2014 at 9:07 AM

People forget an important point. The United States declared war on Japan- everybody knows that from the famous recording of FDR’s speech to Congress. BUT……. It was Germany that first declared war on the United States (on December 11th 1941). Had Hitler not done that, it is not a certainty that the United States would have entered the war in Europe when and how it did.

This is an interesting news subject and I understand that we have to contain Putin to prevent him from getting confortable with the habit of bullying Russia’s neighbors. But we should help those who help themselves and are serious about the job of nation building. Ukraine finds itself a sitting duck on the crosshairs of Putin due to the weakness of its military forces, and we have to ask ourselves what have they been doing in the meantime since they regained their independence from the USSR.

Poland has a large and well trained army because they know the kind of neighborhood they live in; they know their history and that they’ve had “issues” with Russia in the past. They clearly set up not to depend on NATO for their security or to be vulnerable; Ukraine didn’t and now that the Russian bear is hungry they find themselves scrambling to come up with a plan.

I’m truly sorry for them, I’m pretty sure they are wonderful people and it would be a human tragedy if there were to be war with Russia. But if you love your country and value your independence you should take the job of nation building seriously and now waste time with corrupt politicians and oligarchs.

People forget an important point. The United States declared war on Japan- everybody knows that from the famous recording of FDR’s speech to Congress. BUT……. It was Germany that first declared war on the United States (on December 11th 1941). Had Hitler not done that, it is not a certainty that the United States would have entered the war in Europe when and how it did.

People forget an important point. The United States declared war on Japan- everybody knows that from the famous recording of FDR’s speech to Congress. BUT……. It was Germany that first declared war on the United States (on December 11th 1941). Had Hitler not done that, it is not a certainty that the United States would have entered the war in Europe when and how it did.

Happy Nomad on April 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I’ll submit that our entry into the European theater was a certainty the moment Hitler beat Stalin to the double-cross portion of their faux alliance.

Oh God, I’m just amazed at this “analysis”. Nobody will take Transnistria or Eastern Ukraine. What Russia wants is a weak and dependent neighbor, not another hole in their budget. If Europe or the US wants to do anything, they should first and foremost ensure that Ukraine is not dependent on Russia’s gas. Yes, you buy gas for Ukraine and sell it to it at a reasonable price (not saying low, just some reasonable price that Ukraine can count on). Right now the problem isn’t even the price. It’s that Russia may cut and restore supplies at will.

Unfortunately we live in Obama America where people expect results without effort. Republicans contribute to this sad state of affairs pretending that it’s all about one person, Obama. The House may propose reasonable measures. I don’t hear anything.

In reality, historians have come to view WWII in Europe as an extension of WWI. Which, IMO, is a fair assessment since you really can’t get at the root causes of WWII without understanding WWI and the subsequent results (Treaty of Versailles, dismantling the Austrian-Hungarian empire, rise of socialism in Russia, isolationist movement, etc.).

Japan could well have gotten away with its expansion in Asia had they not attacked the United States. Europe was too involved with conflict at home to do much about their overseas empires and the United States was sufficiently isolationist to stay out of the fray.

But as to historians framing WWIII along the lines of a battle with Islamofascists. I agree with you that the 9/11/01 atrocities are not even close to being the opening salvo. I would place that date back in the 1970s when the Islamists ejected the increasingly Westernized socieites of the Middle East and replaced them with Islamic fundamentalism. Hard as it is for the Millenials to believe there was a time when Tehran was one of the most Westernized cities in the region and Beruit was a tourist and banking center.

Happy Nomad on April 25, 2014 at 9:23 AM

In much the same way the War of 1812 can be viewed as a continuation of the American Revolution, and the various Franco-English and Franco-Germanic wars can be viewed as continuations of the previous skirmish.

I’m somewhat conflicted on whether to agree on the second point. While America was isolationist, FDR sure was not. Specifically with respect to Japan, I refer you to the Flying Tigers.

You and I agree on when the Islamist portion of WWIII began. Of course, the historians will choose to say that was “pre-WWIII” because it wasn’t Europe-on-Europe action.

Or Kiev, or Warsaw, or Helsinki,… (all cities that, less than 100 years ago, were under Russian control).

Or Paris, or London, or Cleveland. Now that Pootie’s taken Crimea and one other place no one here could find on a map, all bets are off the table. He’s ruthless and cunning, and we only spend a hundred times more than he does on defense and have a hundred more allies.

The Ukrainian PM is 100% correct. If Russia proceeds with military incursions into Eastern Ukraine, it may very well signal the start of global conflict that could transform into World War III. Such a conflict would end very badly for Russia and the Russian people.

And no, Putin is not smart enough to avoid it. Contrary to some Neanderthal cheerleaders, Putin is not “cunning”, he is just a thug with territorial ambitions, like countless other despots in European history.

This is an interesting news subject and I understand that we have to contain Putin to prevent him from getting confortable with the habit of bullying Russia’s neighbors. But we should help those who help themselves and are serious about the job of nation building. Ukraine finds itself a sitting duck on the crosshairs of Putin due to the weakness of its military forces, and we have to ask ourselves what have they been doing in the meantime since they regained their independence from the USSR.

Poland has a large and well trained army because they know the kind of neighborhood they live in; they know their history and that they’ve had “issues” with Russia in the past. They clearly set up not to depend on NATO for their security or to be vulnerable; Ukraine didn’t and now that the Russian bear is hungry they find themselves scrambling to come up with a plan.

I’m truly sorry for them, I’m pretty sure they are wonderful people and it would be a human tragedy if there were to be war with Russia. But if you love your country and value your independence you should take the job of nation building seriously and now waste time with corrupt politicians and oligarchs.

ujorge on April 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Poland has had far more advantages that Ukraine lacked, such as politicians like Lech Walesa who were somewhat ethical.

Or Kiev, or Warsaw, or Helsinki,… (all cities that, less than 100 years ago, were under Russian control).

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM

In the 70′s and 80′s we used to talk about the “race to the Rhine.” Would the Soviets blow through the Fulda gap and capture West Gernmany before “Reforger” could push enough troops through ports in the Lowlands to stop them at the Rhine. Of course the Russians actually planned to nuke the Reforger ports and we planned to nuke their tank armies coming from East Germany (hard on the poor Germans of course so you could not really talk about it).

Could we see a new race to see how far West Russia can push before any force sufficient to stop them develops? Do they have the logistics train to support troops far from the source of supply anymore? Do refugees clog the roads fleeing the Russians or do they stay in place hoping to be rescued later? Many questions; but I doubt we have any answers. We are reacting not planning.

People forget an important point. The United States declared war on Japan- everybody knows that from the famous recording of FDR’s speech to Congress. BUT……. It was Germany that first declared war on the United States (on December 11th 1941). Had Hitler not done that, it is not a certainty that the United States would have entered the war in Europe when and how it did.

What’s the end game for that strategy? Eastern Ukraine isn’t the wealthiest neighborhood, after all, so it’s not an end in itself. Transnistria is hoping they’re part of the larger game

This is not about money, though Eastern Ukraine is much wealthier than Western Ukraine in terms of per capita income. Russia has its fingers in some of the poorest parts of the “near abroad” (including Transnistria, with a GDP under a billion dollars and a per capita income around $1,500). It’s about power, control, pride, and glory. If Putin can buy those with money and force, he’s perfectly happy to do so.

I don’t know why this guy thinks it will be a world war. There’s absolutely no reason for America to send our young people into yet another European border fight. Let them fight, and then be ready to open trade with whoever wins, and leave it at that. It’s not as if America is threatened – it’s not our war.

Besides, now we have “free” health care just like them – what even makes them think we can afford to get embroiled in yet another foreign conflict???

The only person that thinks Kerry’s rhetoric is acceptable is John Kerry. He trys to be condescending.

Make no mistake about it, Ukraine will be part of Russia before the year is out. Putin is not interested in starting WWIII, but he doesn’t have to with Obama and the panty-waist politicians in Western Europe.

The Russians drew Georgia into a war in 2008 by provoking them through infiltration and actions similar to what has happened in Crimea and eastern Ukraine over the last several weeks.

No, the Georgians attacked, and Russia was caught off guard but reacted.

And just a reminder: the entire mass media narrative on Ukraine is a pack of lies. The Maidan massacre narrative fell apart on German TV: shots came from the rioters’ own headquarters. Etc. The whole official story is a false narrative founded on big lies.

Make no mistake about it, Ukraine will be part of Russia before the year is out. Putin is not interested in starting WWIII, but he doesn’t have to with Obama and the panty-waist politicians in Western Europe.

koolbob on April 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM

No.

Russia needed Crimea, in order not to have the Black Sea turned into a NATO lake, and Russia needs protection and preferably autonomy for ethnic Russians in Ukraine, mainly Eastern Ukraine.

Russia does not need Western Ukraine, which has lots of Russophobes.

Many people are believing the bogus “Russian aggression” narrative and talking about when Russia rolls into the Baltic states to reincorporate them by force. None of that will happen.

I get the analogies to the gathering storm of WWII (h/t Winston Churchill), but why is no one comparing Putin to Napoleon Bonaparte?

Both come from countries that were ongoing operations under authoritarian regimes (Le estate, ces’t moi); which disintegrated by popular demand, followed by a period of semi-anarchy. Both men rose from the ashes of anarchy to rule by force of will, and are now bent on increasing their realms.